Well done video, but don't agree with the message. Giving people cash with no strings attached might work for a time, but if a person can survive without labor then a person will naturally gravitate towards.
Reviews for "Why Basic Income?"
adamanimates responds:
It may be counter-intuitive, especially since we've been told all our lives that people are naturally lazy and you shouldn't give out money for nothing. But the evidence actually points in the other direction. In the studies mentioned, people tended to use the basic income to further invest in their businesses or start new ones, thus increasing their incomes from work. In the study in Manitoba, Canada, the only people that cut back their working hours were new mothers and high school kids.
Wait, wait, wait, wait,wait....
Doctors are not gonna be replaced. Lawyers are not gonna be replaced. Writers are not gonna be replaced. And neither are animators gonna be replaced. The reason is, that no matter how good your machine, your machine learning algorithm, your vector machines, your evolutionary programming or your whatever is: When it comes down to creative input (even in the most abstract form, as it is the case with lawyers) a machine will always be limited by its programming. Of course it can outdo people in a lot of ways, but machines always have to comply with certain models of functionality, which limits their behaviour. Which is not just a technological limitation but a necessity for the deterministic completion of work.
Now as a supplementary tool, machine learning is going to help these creative jobs. But that's it. As for the purely mechanical jobs - yes, there will be less of those in the future. But this is - and that is unfortunately the entire explanation - how progress goes down. And has been going down throughout the entirety of history. Electric lights made the candlemaker obsolete. And the automobile the horseshoer.
Now believing that the - admittedly large scale - automatization of jobs is a proper premise to argue for the additional taxation of the general public - in order to pay for those who lost their jobs - is a fallacy. As is arguing that you are just taking jobs out of the market via digitalization.
With the electric lights came the elictrician. With the automobile the mechanic. And it doesn't look much different in the digitalization age. With the medical recommender system comes the medical data researcher. With the self-driving car the office for regular software checks and updates.
And so on, and so on.
You can argue for programs that help people who lost their jobs to get into a new field. Hold that under my nose and I'll sign it. But as a premise for extra taxation/basic unconditional income? No.
I've actually seen a similar concept in action over here. I've held conversations with people who received this sort of income. As for the studies you quoted: Not the totally poor are the problem. Those guys are always happy to improve their situation and the results of those studies are no surprise to me at all.
The problem is the guy that's like "You know what? I worked enough for the last 3 years. Time to take a year off. I get 900 bucks a month. With what I've saved that's enough." I've in fact known a guy like this in person, who did exactly that with unemployment allowance. He drove a dodge. In europe those are expensive cars. And then the taxpayer pays for that? Without any condition?
That's not justice in my eyes. That's not even feasible.
Fancy animation though.
P.S.: Funny sidenote: The guy with the dodge actually migrated to canada.
adamanimates responds:
I appreciate the response, and I will try to explain more where I'm coming from.
The automation I see coming for the 'creative' jobs doesn't need to completely eliminate professions to cause a problem, just reduce the number of people required. As a Netflix animator, I've watched as the software we use gets better to the point of doing many things for us. My job used to be done by about six people, so a smaller workforce is required. I can imagine a day when software automatically poses character rigs to storyboards, and then uses machine learning to generate keyframes. Then animators would just check that they look okay, adding details where necessary, and hitting a button to build extremes and then inbetweens. The inbetween stage, which smooths out the animation, is almost entirely automated now.
Lawyers will still be around, but they'll need far fewer people to do all the research. Doctors can double check a machine-generated diagnosis and so see more people. Writers have already been replaced in generating business and sports articles. There will always be writers doing more creative things, but the more formulaic stuff will be computer-generated.
It should be a great that we can do more. (Newgrounds is certainly a better place for it.) My view is that those gains should benefit society, instead of just whoever happens to own the machines doing the work. There was a break between productivity and wages in the 1970s. I think we're all overdue for a raise... even the people that have been put out of a job.
Jobs are of course being created by technology, but an order of magnitude more are being taken away. I don't see how retraining is going to fix the problem. Maybe those displaced can be retrained to find something new, but it's the speed of change that will cause a lot of damage. Maybe you've seen how few people Netflix employs, and how many jobs were done away with when Blockbuster disappeared.
I'm guessing you live in the States. You might look at the low unemployment rate and think things are fine, but it's only the service sector expanding. This means that all other jobs are shrinking and people are forced to do more fast food jobs or things like driving for Uber. Automation tends to go for the highest paying jobs first... it's why there are giant robots in car manufacturing, while low-paid Chinese workers still put together our phones. As machines become cheaper than people, a lot of people are going to suffer.
In your view, and a lot of others, there is a nobility to work that enables us to become deserving members of society. If one does not work, they are freeloaders and deserve nothing, etc, like the person with the truck you mention. This puritan work ethic runs into problems once there aren't enough jobs for everyone. So the response is usually denial and saying that there will always be jobs, you can create your own job, etc. I found it interesting to read accounts from the Great Depression about how conservatives with such views came to accept government handouts as 'just the way things are now,' once they found they weren't able to get work.
I think that we have certain axioms about work and justice that we form in our teens, which lead to our overall political view. These things are deeply rooted and almost impossible to change. Whatever evidence we see in the rest of our lives, we tend to pick and choose to fit our worldview. It takes a long-term, conscious effort in order to expand our ideologies.
So maybe nothing I can say will change your view. But I hope you can keep an open mind and try to see where others are coming from.
Notbad at all
Well here was something cool I always wanted to make something like this it's entertaining and the visuals are nice just would be nice to have more flashy effects with this style of animation but besides all that it's actually pretty good stuff
~~THINGS TO IMPROVE ON~~
As mentioned some flashy effects would be awesome
~X~
Nice quality of animation but it is just another utopia. BTW this thing seems communistic. I hate commies.
+10 for animation
-4 for politics
adamanimates responds:
I suggest reading "Utopia for Realists" by Rutger Bregman. It argues that we've become cynical to visions of a better future because many of the utopian visions of the past have actually come true. We're much richer than we used to be. Now the fight is whether to hoard those riches in the hands of a few, or use them to benefit all of society. We each have our positions in that debate.
By your logic though, Nixon was a communist. There was broad bi-partisan consensus for the ideas I'm talking about in the 60s and early 70s. Nixon's basic income plan was derailed by a study that said divorce rates would go up. Everyone then became more concerned about that. Turned out the data was analyzed wrong and divorce rates barely changed at all. We'd have this policy now if not for that.
I completely agree with the people criticizing this notion that you're suggesting; I just can't watch this without feeling as though you're Stefan Molyneuxing all over my tits, so I'll explain my rationale behind that reaction.
The first few points that you made about the job market being incredibly dog-eat-dog and about it being resoundingly fucked up for people already living in impoverished states to be made to feel even more like shit through an encapsulating stigma regarding their position are very valid and I think that these are matters that we should consider resolving; I don't think there's anything wrong with socialism and federal intervention in matters that affect the economy seems appropriate to me, but you're over simplifying this to say that if people were simply endowed the money needed to live sustainably, it would fix the economy. You point to studies in which people have been directly given the money they need to survive and took such as incentive to improve their lives and become entrepreneurs, but what I think you're failing to understand is that if everyone were given a fixed amount of money needed for basic income, it would not simply be a larger example of the same result.
I think a significant part of the reason that people become entrepreneurs when given the money they need for basic income is due to our current systemic arrangements; they're anomalies for being given such an opportunity in life and so they utilize it by creating businesses and taking it further. But, if this opportunity suddenly became the norm, who's to say that the majority of people wouldn't react by turning into drooling ignoramuses that watch Jersey Shore reruns all day? Everyone is is guaranteed the $12,000 a year they need to survive, so why would they feel so inclined to hold this matter to scrutiny any longer? This argument of yours that people will become more entrepreneurial and productive in a society that gives them everything they need seems tantamount to someone arguing that because attendance of grade school is legally required of those in western countries, the majorty will be able to discern the merits of this arrangement and achieve an Ivy League scholarship for their post secondary education instead of dropping out with a GED at 16 to play video games and masturbate all day.
As for your argument that as debt slaves, we've been brainwashed by the rich into believing that humans can be lazy so that their taxes won't increase, I honestly find that absurd. Of course bequeathing pedestals upon the rich so that they might become richer instead of resolving poverty is a corrupt economic practice, but this recurring argument that people are being indoctrinated by the rich and have no agency to critically consider the matter for themselves is ludicrous; you're just gas-lighting the key problem with your argument away by suggesting that it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that homeless people deserve to be homeless; I'm very aware of the nuances behind that situation and understand that a lot of them would relinquish anything they have to offer just to work at McDonald's, only to receive no call back to their homeless shelter, but can't ignore the reality of human incompetence in general. I agree with your argument that the problems you are identifying are indeed problems, but sincerely opine that your solution is trite and oversimplified.
Nice animation style.
adamanimates responds:
Thanks for the well thought-out, polite response.
I can't stand Stefan Molyneux either, so I apologize if this reminds you of him. I'd just like to point out that this is not 'my' solution. I'm trying to get an idea across in a short time that has a long history, lots of research, and the support of thousands of economists.
I suggest reading this article about how basic income was almost passed in America:
https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-president-nixon-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145
I never claimed that people don't have agency. You can always read between the lines and figure out what others are trying to get you to think, and where their motivations are coming from. I'm just saying that not everyone has the time for that. It takes a lot of education and effort, and so propaganda has an effect.
As for the problem of motivation, I don't think that Basic Income is a magical answer. But my opinion is that the threat of destitution is not a just way to motivate people. Better motivation comes from elsewhere... it feels good to contribute to society, to have a role in the community, and to figure out what you can do best. There's a reason people volunteer. And of course, most people would like more than just $12,000 per year. It doesn't get you too far.
I think that we're really uncomfortable about people sitting around and doing things we disapprove of. But it doesn't bother me at all what people choose to do with their time. It's none of my business. If someone chooses to voluntarily drop out of the workforce and live on the minimum, that's another spot opened up for someone more willing to do the job.
But I'll go back to the evidence... in the 70s the basic income studies in New Jersey found, to everyone's surprise, that people hardly cut back their work hours at all. You posit that it's just because it was a small number of people, but every study around the world has found similar results.